Key Issues and Information Appearing in the Alternative Media. The Truth about 911, Corruption, War, the Economy - Real News and Analysis in Opposition to the Mainstream Propaganda.

Friday, 16 June 2017

Why Didn’t the Grenfell Towers Collapse After Burning for Over 12 Hours?

At least six people have died and more than 50 are being treated in hospital after a huge fire engulfed a tower block in west London in the early hours of the morning. The Metropolitan police said it expected the number of fatalities to rise further, as a result of what Commander Stuart Cundy called a “truly shocking” fire at Grenfell Tower in the Latimer Road area, near Notting Hill, the Guardian reports. But isn’t it amazing the building never collapsed. After all, it was a fire that burned for over 12 hours.

People feared a collapse, but high rise buildings are fire resistant. They do not simply collapse due to fire.

The London building had a reinforced concrete structure, unlike the 'pure' steel framed buildings that were demolished on 911- the World Trade Centre Towers and Building 7. People can argue that this made the London building more resistant to fire damage (so that we would NOT expect it to collapse).

People should be aware that there have been plenty of large fires in steel only buildings that didn't cause any of them to collapse, before and after 911:

9/11 In Perspective

Fire cannot bring down these type of buildings, certainly not at near freefall speed, or equal to freefall, as was witnessed on 911. Only Controlled Demolition (explosives) can bring down buildings in that way:

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7

Note: The recent Plasco Building 'Collapse' in Tehran was a controlled demolition. There were explosions, horizontal ejections, and impossible molten metal indicating incendiary use, because open air fires do not melt steel to the extent seen. Like the 911 attacks, a combination of explosives and incendiaries appears to have been used: